CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Brooks

This case involves a defendant, Steven Brooks, seeking dismissal of two felony counts (burglary and criminal mischief) from his indictment in the interest of justice, pursuant to CPL 210.40. Brooks, a persistent felony offender with significant mental and physical disabilities, was arrested in 1986 for taking beer and a television from a distributorship. The court, presided over by Harold Fertig, J., held a People v Clayton hearing with testimonies from multiple psychiatrists and a social worker, who highlighted Brooks's limited intelligence, brain damage, chronic depression, and inability to cope with society or prison life. Despite the prosecution's opposition, the court found that further incarceration would not rehabilitate Brooks and that the Department of Correctional Services inadequately addresses the needs of inmates like him. Concluding that a dismissal of the felony charges would allow for a sentence of probation with placement in a residential treatment program, thereby strengthening public confidence and promoting community welfare, the court granted the dismissal of the felony counts.

Criminal Procedure LawCPL 210.40Dismissal in interest of justicePersistent felony offenderMental health issuesCognitive impairmentRecidivismRehabilitationResidential treatment programProbation
References
9
Case No. 153 AD3d 1621
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2017

Matter of Brooks v. Greene

This case involves an appeal by Halbert Brooks, Jr. (father) from a Family Court order that awarded sole custody of the parties' child to Paula Greene (mother) and mandated supervised overnight visitation for the father. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed the appeal concerning supervised visitation as moot because subsequent orders allowed unsupervised visitation. However, the appeal was not moot regarding the custody issues. The Court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the father's recusal motion against the Judge and his motion to remove the Attorney for the Child, finding no substantiated allegations of bias in either instance.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsRecusal MotionAttorney for the ChildMootness DoctrineJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewBias AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 6
References
10
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies v. Brooks

This action arises from an alleged overpayment of no-fault benefits by State Farm to James Brooks. Brooks, injured in an automobile accident, received lost earnings benefits from State Farm, but was later furloughed from his job due to lack of work, not his injury, yet continued to receive full benefits. State Farm sought to recover the alleged overpayment, arguing an insurance regulation (11 NYCRR 65.6 (n) (2) (vi)) required a reduction to unemployment benefits if the position would have been lost regardless of the accident. The court, in a case of first impression, found this regulation invalid as applied to Brooks, conflicting with the Insurance Law's purpose of compensating for actual economic loss. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, James Brooks.

No-fault insuranceAutomobile accidentOverpayment of benefitsLost earningsUnemployment benefitsInsurance Law interpretationSummary judgmentStatutory conflictRegulation validityEconomic loss
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galdemis v. Brook

The case involves a medical malpractice action where defendants Marion Hansen and Dr. Judith Brook appealed the denial of their motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied their motions with leave to renew pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the injured plaintiff's eligibility for benefits. The plaintiffs also cross-appealed, but their cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to refer the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board and properly refused to entertain the appellants' motions for summary judgment at that stage.

medical malpracticesummary judgmentWorkers' Compensation Lawappealjurisdictionreferral to agencyNassau County Supreme Courtappellate division
References
4
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

The CSEA, representing employees at SUNY Stony Brook, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent the university from allowing a rival union, Hospital Workers Union 1199, to hold a meeting on campus. CSEA argued this violated their collective bargaining agreement. The university contended the meeting was student-organized for academic freedom, not union organizing. The court ruled that the contract provision regarding meeting space must be interpreted narrowly to avoid violating the university's constitutional obligation to provide facilities nondiscriminatorily. Consequently, the court dismissed the CSEA's petition.

Academic FreedomFreedom of SpeechCollective Bargaining AgreementRival UnionsFacility UseDiscriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawArticle 78 Proceeding
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1986

Brooks v. A. Gatty Service Co.

Francis Brooks, an employee of the White Plains Housing Authority, sustained injuries in 1982 while operating a refuse compactor manufactured by A. Gatty Service Co., Inc. William Timm & Associates, an engineering firm hired by the Housing Authority to inspect the compactor, was named as a defendant. Timm moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a consulting engineer, they could not be held liable to the injured worker without affirmative negligence or a specific contractual provision. The Supreme Court initially denied their motion, but the appellate court modified this decision. Finding no evidence of affirmative negligence, the appellate court granted summary judgment in favor of William Timm & Associates, affirming the order as modified.

Personal InjuryNegligenceBreach of WarrantyStrict Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentConsulting Engineer LiabilityProduct LiabilityRefuse Compactor InjuryAppellate ReviewThird-Party Defendant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 24,523 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational